During an audit yesterday, we found that the Design group is still using the "Team Feasibility Commitment Form" from our QS-9000 days. I can't see where it adds any value, it just seems like an exercies of running around to get signatures on the form to show that we "did it". We actually do review and consider those things but they're done at various stages when necessary.

So, we really do not have to use this form anymore. Right? ISO 9001:2000 doesn't reference feasibility? Correct? I feel blind after staring at the standard and searching the Cove...I'm tryin' to think but nuthin' happens! :lol:

During an audit yesterday, we found that the Design group is still using the "Team Feasibility Commitment Form" from our QS-9000 days. I can't see where it adds any value, it just seems like an exercies of running around to get signatures on the form to show that we "did it". We actually do review and consider those things but they're done at various stages when necessary.

So, we really do not have to use this form anymore. Right? ISO 9001:2000 doesn't reference feasibility? Correct? I feel blind after staring at the standard and searching the Cove...I'm tryin' to think but nuthin' happens! :lol:

To answer your question, the TFC is an AIAG construct and isn't required in ISO 9001. It can be a useful device, however, in combating the Abilene Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox), a groupthink phenomenon that happens after a project dies, and its promoters stand ruefully over the body and swear that they always knew it was a stupid idea.

If the TFC, or some form of it, is used conscientiously, people have a tendency to think twice before agreeing to board an obviously leaky ship. The danger is that it will be used as a post-mortem punishment device, rather than a way to objectively look at what happened so as to avoid similar missteps in the future.

Jim is correct that ISO does not require it, but the process was developed because it is a good risk management exercise ... it was not just intended to create a document. If you are doing it as-needed part of a stage-gate process then I would hope that there is evidence of the decisions being made, and that evidence would suffice (in effect replacing the TFC document with your current documentation).

:thanx: I don't want to get rid of the TFC completely in case we switch over to TS someday. The R&D guys are thinking of taking some of the TFC and incorporating it into their "New Product Proposal", which outlines / considers several other important things as well as "initial design inputs". It seems like a good fit. But that is strictly for our own internal new products. I'll most likely incorporate some of the TFC into our Contract Review activities for outside Customers wanting a new product from us.

Since you don't have a standard that requires that form to be maintained as a record, it boils down to your decision if such record should be required or not. Nevertheless, the "signing" of a record might bring additional "seriousness" to the decision making process of, endorsing or not, a justification to bring the concept to the next stage of development.
You want to make sure accountability is part of the process. If people don't have to sign a form to designate their concurrence with the decision, they might not take it as seriously as they should. But then again, you have to take into account the organization's culture.